Friday, May 13, 2011

Koalas on the Ark

I used to post frequently on a Christian discussion forum called CARM. Because of my other pursuits, though, I now only visit there once in a while. The debates I often had with non-believers on CARM played a large part in my decision to start a blog. I still lurk there occasionally for ideas and inspiration for my blog.

Just recently, I came across a thread started by an evolutionist who goes by the name of LeszekUK. It demonstrates wonderfully the evolutionist tactic of straw man arguments. LeszekUK's quotes are in indented and italicized:

Here is a puzzle for the Creos. (It works for pandas and bamboo, as well!)

By the way, by “Creos” he means “creationists.” Note that he also said this works for pandas and bamboo as well. I intend to leverage that in a moment.

Koalas eat only eucalyptus leaves.

Actually, it's not “only” eucalyptus leaves. They do primarily eat eucalyptus leaves but I've found a source that says they occasionally “eat [leaves] from other trees such as wattle or tea tree.” This is not a trivial point. As we will see, LeszekUK's argument hinges on the premise that koalas eat only eucalyptus leaves. If they can, in fact, eat other things, it immediately undermine his whole point.

Yet the myth of Noah's Ark claims that all the animals came on board, two by two, male and female... So how did these koalas manage to make it across continents and oceans, all the way from Australia to the Middle East, when all their food stayed in Australia?

LeszekUK has made two mistakes here. First, he assumes koala's lived in Australia before the Flood. The present distribution of animals throughout the world is merely that – their present distribution. We can't say with certainty where Koalas lived prior to the Flood. Marsupial fossils are found on every continent.

Second, LeszekUK also assumes that koalas ate only eucalyptus leaves prior to the Flood.. Modern koalas diets are more specialized but we already know they don't eat eucalyptus leaves exclusively so it's possible, even likely, that their ancestors had a much broader diet.

By the way, in the same way we don't know the animal distribution before the Flood, neither are we sure of plant distribution before the Flood. LeszekUK has also assumed that eucalyptus trees only grew in Australia prior to the Flood so I guess that's a third mistake he made in that one statement. Wait! Make that four mistakes – Noah wasn't necessarily in the Middle East prior to the Flood. The Ark merely came to rest there.

Aside from the problem of how one koala pair knew they had to make it to the Ark, how did they manage to make the crossing? Swimming and starving? Did Noah travel to Australia first to gather up eucalyptus leaves?

You can see now how this is a straw man. The koala (rather, the kind to which koalas belong) did not have to swim from Australia carrying eucalyptus leaves with it. For all I know it might have lived in Noah's back yard eating the leaves of whatever trees grew there.

Even worse for Creos, when the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, once all the vegetation had been drowned, how, exactly, did they make it back whence they came?

Koalas did not have to travel back to whence they came. The fact of the matter is that their previous habitat no longer existed. Instead, they had to carve out a new niche in the new world. In the case of koalas, they ended up in what is now Australia.

As far as vegetation goes, anybody who has maintained a yard all summer knows that plants need little coaxing to grow. Plants grow like... well, like weeds. Remember that the dove returned with an olive leaf in its mouth (Genesis 8:11) signifying that plants had already been regrowing for a while. When the animals finally left the Ark, there was no doubt an abundance of vegetation already grown and ready to be eaten.

Let me visit the panda bear example now. Bears are a little different than koalas because they are more diverse and us Western folks are more familiar with bears. Pandas eat almost nothing but bamboo. However, we know that their cousins (polar bears, black bears, grizzly bears, etc), eat a variety of things.

Creationists and evolutionists both agree that pandas have a common ancestor with all other bear species. So tell me: did the common ancestor only eat bamboo and all other bear species have since evolved the ability to eat other things? More likely, the common ancestor had a more varied diet and its descendants, the pandas, now have a more specialized diet. Furthermore, bears are distributed throughout the world. If they are descended from a common ancestor, they must have been all in one place at some point.

So, let's sum up. It can hardly be argued that pandas have a common ancestor with other bears that could eat things other than bamboo and did not necessarily live in Asia. The panda did not have to walk from China to the Middle East while carrying bamboo, then walk back to China after the Flood. Why then, can some people not understand that even though modern koalas are adapted to their environment, it does not mean their ancestor only lived in Australia and only ate eucalyptus leaves?

We know Creos have no intelligent answers, because the Ark is a myth.

This criticism of our position is rather mundane. It borders on being a canard and the rebuttal is rather simple. It makes me wonder, then, why this criticism continues being raised. It can only be one of two things:

1) The critic is aware of the responses I've offered here but is unsatisfied by them. If this is the case, then the critic is being disingenuous when claiming that creationists have no answers. Instead of pretending this point hasn't been answered, the critic should move on to any possible counter rebuttal so there can be a discussion.

2) The critic is unaware of these plausible responses and so continues to repeat the canard out of ignorance. This is demonstrative of the fact that the critic has never really looked into the creationist theory. He has made up his mind about his theory without having considered all of the evidence.

The real mystery is why Creos haven't the ability to realise this is a myth. Why are they so wedded to biblical mysticism, they regard this nonsense as truth?

Ha! This comes from a person who claims to seriously believe that koalas had to swim from Australia to the Middle East and then back again. He obviously has not given a second thought to the Biblical account of the Flood beyond his desire to criticize it.

5 comments:

As for Koala's having to come from Australia, there was no Australia before the flood. The Bible states that after the flood, the one land broke apart (science agrees on this but not the timing, and they call the original supercontinent 'Pangea' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea). So there was just one land mass originally before the flood and no animals would have crossed water at all.

You're absolutely right. Genesis 1:9 says that all the waters under heaven were gathered into one place. This necessarily means there was a single continent so prior to the Flood, there could not have been an Australia as we now know it. I did allude to that in my post when I said, “The fact of the matter is that their previous habitat no longer existed,” but after having read it again, I see I wasn't very clear on that point. Thanks for pointing it out.

I also appreciate your words of encouragement. Please keep visiting and commenting! Also, tell your friends about my blog and especially share it with non-believers. You can help me get the Word out.

I stumbled onto your site while looking up pics of platypii. I am open to lots of theories but this thing you've written has mistakes, dead ends, and huge leaps of logic to 'conclusions'. You would lose miserably in an argument against an evolution scientist.

I am a Creationist. But the Bible is not specific on everything. One point you make is that we don't know much about koala distribution before the flood. But we DO know where they Weren't hanging out. There are no fossils, no matter how old they might be, of any koalas anywhere but Australia. Fossils, even if they were created 12,000 yrs ago, of all Australian mammals are found there. Where ever the surface of Australia was located before the flood, that's where they lived. Marsupial fossils are found on every continent... but Australian mammal fossils are only found in Australia. They lived there before the flood.

"In the case of koalas, they ended up in what is now Australia." What do you mean by 'ended up'? This implies that they were traveling, and then they stopped there. Huh? How? And along with all the Australian-specific animals?

Australia is and has always been an isolated place, whether it ever was connected by land or not. Did you know that ALL native mammals in Australia are marsupials? That's pretty significant to the evolutionists.

Panda bears are different since they live, and are from, a huge continent, which is known to have been connected in the past to other continents, fairly recently in geologic terms. Not the case for koalas or any other Australian land animals.

It is late and I'm tired, sorry if I am coming off as being crabby... but there are a half dozen more points that even a garage scientist would laugh at...I'm not saying I have all the answers, but this is def full of holes. But you're right, koalas can eat other stuff but eat mostly eucalyptus, because they taste the best.

RKBentley

About me

I'm a husband, a father, and a Christian. Being a Christian is not something I do on Sundays but rather it is who I am. My faith influences everything I do. Christians are commanded to always be ready to give an answer – a reason for the hope that is in us. I take that command seriously. Psalm 19:7 says that the testimony of the LORD is sure. If we base all of our thinking on the Bible, we can't go wrong. I started this blog to encourage other Christians and challenge critics on a variety of issues. Whether you agree or disagree with me, you're welcome here. Please follow me on Twitter and friend me on FaceBook! God bless!!